9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was not based on an independent application of mind to the facts available. The revenue, admittedly has not been able to dislodge any of the categorical findings of the ld. CIT(A). This being so, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT (A) in quashing the reopening of assessment. Consequently, Ground No. 1 of revenue stands dismissed. Illegal mining and disallowance of expenditure u/s. 37(1) - CIT(A) held that the disallowance u/s. 37 would only come into play if the assessee had been penalized under the appropriate sections of the respective statute and if the assessee has claimed this penalty as an expenses in the profit and loss account. CIT (A) further goes on to hold that the payments made by the assessee to various parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of quantum additions made for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-2011, respectively. 3. The assessee has also filed cross objections against the revenue's quantum appeals all dated 21.9.2020 in respect of assessment years 200809 to 2010-2011. 4. As all these appeals relate to same assessee, they are being disposed of by this common order for the sake convenience. 5. Ld. CIT DR has filed adjournment petition dated 29.4.2022, wherein, he has mentioned as follows: '1. That as per the cause list the above case has been fixed for hearing on 2.5.2022. 2. I am presently holding six additional charges including four charges of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and thus over burdened with the task of passing appellate orders. 3. Furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the proceedings u/s. 147 are null and void and the Assessing Officer had no tangible material to form a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that there was no illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No. 114/2014 (2017) in the case of Common Cause Vs Union of India and Ors. 3. That on facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the disallowance of expenditure inadmissible u/s. 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, related to illegal mining without referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the affected parties to respond. Ld. CIT (A) while quashing the reopening of assessment has given a categorical finding that the AO has accepted information from outside source without subjecting it to critical scrutiny and that the AO's "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment was not based on an independent application of mind to the facts available. The revenue, admittedly has not been able to dislodge any of the categorical findings of the ld. CIT(A). This being so, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT (A) in quashing the reopening of assessment. Consequently, Ground No. 1 of revenue stands dismissed. 10. In Ground Nos. 2 & 3, the revenue has raised the issue against the order of the ld. CIT (A) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uine business expenditure for mining activities carried out by these parties like raising of iron ore and transportation of the same. He further held that they are neither in the nature of bribes/protection money nor do they suffer from the taint of illegality as no statutory law has been violated by the assessee in the course of incurring this expenditure. As the revenue has not been able to dislodge the findings of fact arrived at by the ld. CIT(A), we find no error in the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, Ground No. 3 of the revenue stands dismissed. 13. Ground No. 4 of revenue is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 14. Resultantly, appeals filed by the revenue in ITA Nos. 268, 260 & 272/CTK/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
